About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
CSPAN 22
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
-rights laws that prohibit firing, promoting and hiring based on race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, those immutable characteristics that we think are worthy of the protection of our civil rights laws. in most states there are modest exemptions to the employment at will dadoctrine, amount wrongful discharge. when an employer requires someone to break the law in order to keep their job. or if an employer is doing something that is in violation of a well-defined written public policy. other than that, we give employers in this country wi de latitude, because we have a free market economy, because we recognize the person that takes the risk and set up a business and puts their monetary and human capital into it, that they have rights to run their business the way they see fit. we are very, very reluctant to place any sort of restrictions on that. again, this is a small one. not saying that you have to hire anybody that is not fully qualified for your job. in essence, what these laws do rainout are saving employers from themselves, because if they are ignoring all of the unem
in prayer each week, members of the prayer caucus also work together to preserve the presence of religion, faith and morality in the marketplace of ideas. we're seeing increased efforts to remove references to god and fate from the public square. activists seek to remove god from our national motto and pledge of allegiance. they seek to prevent city and county councils from praying and recognizing our nation's spiritual heritage. and they seek to silence people who wish to live out their faith. members of the prayer caucus have countered these efforts successfully, ensuring that our history remains in tact for future generations. in the 112th congress, i introduced a resolution reaffirming our national motto, in god we trust, and encouraging its public display in public buildings. the measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-0. some asked why we needed to reaffirm our national motto. yet if left unstated, the motto could be changed in a de facto matter. in november, 2010, before a worldwide audience and a much publicized speech focusing on the united states relationship -- united st
. you know, it is an area that does not want somebody else's religion or life. the one better health care and better schools. they visit washington and do not understand the fight in a lot of ways. >> specifically when it comes to technology related issues, do you hear anything? >> there is concern about innovation and the role that current law has in the area of copyright and patents stifling innovation. that is typical to remedy. we have a patented build that i did not vote for last year, having worked on it for 12 years. it did not do what we hoped it would do. we have an overarching scheme on copyright enforcement that is probably not that positive in terms of technology and innovation. i'm sure you all remember soapa. i'm talking about individuals who are inventing things and creating things real that there is a problem in terms of the copyright and he can become together and make sure that the laws work in the internet age? that is something i went to work on. i will be introducing some bills. try to get a discussion going. >> when you walk around here, do you see a lot of cons
freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. we have to continue to do that. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever we are trying to do that. countering violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not h
race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, those amiable characteristics we think are worthy of the protections of our civil rights laws. in most states, there are modest exemptions to this employment at will doctrine around wrongful discharge. when an employer requires somebody to breakable law and order to keep their job or if an employer is doing something that is in violation of some well- defined ridden public policy. other than that, we give employers in this country wide latitude because we have a free market economy, because we recognize the person or entity that takes the risk and sets up the business and puts their monetary and human capital into it, that they have rights to run their businesses the way they see fit. we are very, very reluctant to place any sort of restrictions on that. this is but a small one. i am not saying you have to hire anybody that is not fully qualified. in essence, what these laws do, right now they are saving employers from themselves. if they are ignoring all the unemployed workers, they really could be missing the best qualified person
's religion, democracy. every american loves democracy. i grant that. i plead guilty to taking that drug. i am right there with you. there is much more going on here. anybody who knows the middle east understands that the borders were drawn around peoples who do not want to live together. we have seen this in israel. palestinians and jews do not want to live together. we could say, let's have democracy. jews do not want a one state solution. neither the palestinians. it is not about democracy in palestine israel. we said we are going to make democracy in iraq. they pushed the sunnis out of every job in the military, government, education system. that is what is going to happen. anybody who thinks that when the sunnis takeover in syria that they are going to incorporate the national institutions are full and themselves. those institutions have been jammed full of the minorities who have had their foot on the throat of the sunnis for the last 50 years. the aloe-ites who dominate the military structure and tons of other ministries and fill them up with minorities and sunnis who are sympathetic to
, tribe, religion, region, whatever, your industry these days. politics is a lot about power. but we always hope that some people in the discussion of politics and policy will stand for something bigger, something broader. like the public interest, freedom and justice, the ideals of the declaration of the independence and the pledge of allegiance. we hope in washington that's what think tanks do. think tanks are separate from abstracted from the day-to-day struggles for either political power or special interests benefits from public policy. obviously, there are some who do that better than others. in the ideal of the think tank is committed to the public interest, even though we may disagree what the public interest is. some think tanks insist they don't have a world view a perspective, a political philosophy. they are just about analyzing and seeing what works. i'm in favor of that. but to define if something is working you have to define what the goals you seek to achieve. is freedom one of the goals that policy ought to enhance? is justice? is social progress? widespread prosperi
. the state has become the major religion in this country. the icons in washington -- they have to destroy every aspect of people who hold to a higher moral authority. host: the headline in this morning "the wall street journal" -- castle in michigan, on our lands for democrats. -- ethel in michigan, on our line for democrats. caller: my question is, what happened between the separation between church and state? i believe this is more of a legal issue than a religious issue. the religious issue is for the contraceptive. i can understand that. why is this being mixed in with state issues? he did not have to take them if you do not want them, if you do not believe in them. don't use them. i just cannot understand why this does not go away. i am really quite tired of it all. thank you. host: more from the article in this morning's "the wall street journal." they write -- the new rules would require insurers to pay the up-front cost. our next call comes from carol in ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am totally against what the catholic church and republicans are doing a
together who did not usually come together. we were not bounded in a common race or religion. we are not a theocracy. we are not a minority. this nation was born with the ideals that a united people, but these ideals compel every generation to be more inclusive and welcoming. we realize this country was not a zero some political nation. in fact, the more we open up this country to inclusion, the better we are. women joining the work force has not diminished men. it expands our economy and opportunity for all. the education of poor people in the inner-city does not take away from others, it expands our economy and makes us all do better. this is the ideal of our country. as the rabbi would tell me, the jewish saying, that jews together are strong, but jews with other people are invincible. he african saying that spiderwebs united can tie up a line. the very principle of this country, one of my advisers told me one of the fundamental principles of islam. the oneness of the community. we recognize dependency and see strength. that became the problem solving idea that i took on. i be
have wanted to shut up those who would criticize government, to suppress unpopular religions, or disarm people. the president cited constitutional protections of individual rights as the basis for expanded federal power or lives of private individuals. this is the same president who exceeded his power under the constitution to appoint recess appointments. no wonder millions of americans fear the president might take executive action and congress may enact legislation that could lead to a tyrannical federal government. i cannot accept the president's claim that there will be politicians and special interests warning of tyrannical all-out assault on liberty, not because that is true, but because they want to gin up fear. this understandably leads many citizens to figure that their individual rights will be violated. that extends well beyond the second amendment. it should be a matter of deep concern to all of us. the constitution for 225 years established a government that is a servant of the people, not the master. as we consider and debate legislation arising from these tragedies, i hop
the american middle class. it was because we had to bowed down to the religion of the free market and what has never been repaid beentarp is the double standard that when these plutocrats got into trouble, all that garbage about the free market science and milton friedman got thrown right out the window. it is the double standard, the hypocrisy, the contradiction -- that can never be repaid, thank you. guest: the caller raises a really interesting point. this is something i put a report out on this past week. one thing we learned in 2008 was that our financial system was very vulnerable to these highly interconnected financial institutions, too big to fill up companies and not only were they highly interconnected with each other -- we learn that their failure threatened american jobs and american pensions and mortgages. that was really shocking. i don't think regulators were prepared to deal with that. even with the bailout coming and preventing the failure of some of these institutions, there was trillions of dollars in american wealth that went out the door. that is a root cause of the finan
the swamp and what it does, it is radicalizing people that are standing up against militants using religion as a mobilizing force. so i think that drones as an instrument may have had some secrecy in terms of position, but -- and it's like saying, well, we can't allow u.s. f-16s to come in, we use our own to run anti-terror operations when we can, when we are able to move the population and protect them. so drones are now -- we don't see them as productive at all. >> what do you tell the germ's staff -- what do you tell the staff -- >> you need to be a fly on that committee wall. >> jonathan. >> i think we are all. on the same page. members of the general's staff on where the future of this -- pakistan has to take ownership of all anti-terror operations, absolutely all of them for them to be sustainable and to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of our people. you know, there have been a lot of drone strikes next door also. and in any case, you know that al qaeda is the whole al qaeda high valleys is pretty much through our cooperation and joint efforts. and that's something this administrati
religions. unquote. the mission statement i just quoted translates into a comprehensive effort to penetrate to influence, otherwise subvert our american civil society. a form of government, a governing institutions. that explanatory memorandum i just quoted from was written on may 19, 1991, by a top muslim brotherhood operative, -- operative. now, though the justice department has established in federal court during the holy land foundation trials in dallas texas, that the groups identified by the muslim brotherhood in their memo are, quote, their organizations, end quote, a number of them and their successors have been treated by the obama administration as key interlock tors -- interlocutories in dealing with jihad. and believes in this administration, believe that these muslim brotherhood front organizations are legitimate representatives of the muslim -american community. they have enabled the muslim brotherhood to recruit and to show others, look, we are the ones that the white house trusts. we could call the white house. we can call and tell them we have -- there are three people who
, they would learn about each other's religion. at the boxing match, just before the bell rang, one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the rabbi nudged the priest and asked what that meant. the priest says, it does not mean a thing if he cannot fight. [laughter] we bless ourselves with the hope that everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean a damn thing unless you are willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a damn thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream, a dream my parents had, a dream of giving our children a better life, a dream of always maintaining a government of, by, and for people. that course of duty is now passing to a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for that better future. thank you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting.
and exclusion from any of the activities of the state? guest: i am not the kind of islamic or religion scholar, but as a muslim i would say what is against humanity is against -- is not accepted by me as a muslim and i us as muslims in afghanistan. we do have our own definition islam and democracy, but i think it is not the way that was somehow understood in general here. host: the world press freedom index that we showed earlier showed the united states 32nd and afghanistan 128. i want to take that question and ask that about afghanistan. who is restricting the press? guest: the problems we're facing in afghanistan when i am saying "we" it means media people and media community. inside the government of afghanistan sometimes, the people who are fighting with the government, taliban, for example, and some local governments across the country, these are the three main barriers that we are facing with all that we have the constitution, the article 34 is just granting access free media and freedom of information. the article 50 is granting access to information. all of the media [indiscernible] u
's religion. at the boxing match just before the bell rang one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the priest said, it does not mean anything if you cannot fight. we bless ourselves with the hope everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean anything unless you're willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream. the drama -- that torch of duty is as into a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for the better future. think you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting. at georgetown, we do care about these issues and we share your concerns, as well. in the defense budget of 2013, i understand 19% of the budget is being represented for personnel. about 26% is for procurement. 40% is for operations. if you look at all
time. it does not matter whether the person is jewish or whether they are any religion. that is a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. we have got to get over this sensitivity. it keeps people from saying what they really believe. i am reminded of a successful young businessman. he loved to buy his mother exotic gifts for mother's day and ran out of ideas. then he ran across these birds. they cost $5,000 apiece, they could dance, they could sing, they could talk. he bought two of them and send them to his mother, could not wait to call him. what did you think of those birds? she said, they were good. [laughter]he said, no, no, you did not eat those birds. they cost $5,000 -- they could dance, sing, talk. she said, they should have said something. [laughter]that is where we end up to if we do not speak up for what we believe. what we need to do -- [applause]what we need to do in this pc world is forget about unanimity of speech and unanimity of thought. we need to concentrate on being respectful to those people with whom we disagree. that is when we begin to make real pro
need to drain the swamp. instead it radicalizes people standing up using religion as a mobilizing force. host: the ambassador made a comment yesterday at a breakfast hosted by the christian science monitor. we covered it. c-span.org to what spoken. the washington times said the ambassador said that the attacks violate pakistani sovereignty and international law. the reaction from the aclu has been besthis -- ronnie in orlando, florida, independent. caller: thank you very much. i think it is absolutely outrageous, but it is just a continuation of outrageous policy that have gone on for the last almost 12 years now. i have to say that the previous caller, it just breaks my heart , in thinking that people that are objecting to these policies are against president obama along racial lines. this is not a racial issue. this is not a democrat versus republican issue. this is an issue that we americans are losing our democracy. our constitution is being shredded. gue natione nat internationally. in order to turn this around, which we have got to do, we did not lose 3,000 the law 9/11 to an outs
, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. we have to continue to do that. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not have an up-to-date broadcast
when i talk about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not ha
standing up against militants and terrorists, using our religion, for instance, as a mobilizing force. i think that drones as an instrument may have had some efficacy in terms of decisions, but we cannot allow us f-16's to come in. we use our own to run our anti- terror operations when we can, when we are able to move the population and protect them. drones are really -- we do not see them as productive at all. >> what would you tell the staff? what do you tell a member of the general staff? i think we are all on the same page now. members of the general staff and ourselves, where the future of this lies. pakistan has to take ownership of all anti-terror operations for them to be sustainable and to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of our people. you know, there have been a lot of drone strikes next door, and in any case you know that al qaeda, the whole -- through our cooperation and joint efforts, is pretty much degraded. that is something this administration will agree to also. >> james madison -- as british troops invaded the capital, she is known for saving eight portrait of george
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)